I don't want to debate the actual fact of quantity. I have heard that the field in Alaska that Bush wants to open up is larger than any oil field ever discovered and would supply us with enough oil to be self sustaining for 20 years at the low end to 50 years at the high end. What I want to know is:

THEN WHAT!

I will probably still be here and I am sure most of you will be. Instead of trying to find ways to quickly deplete the remaining fossil fuels, shouldn't someone be concentrating on alternative forms of energy? I don't want to move out of my home in Michigan when I'm 90 because there is no more oil to heat it in the winter. There are groups of people trying to develop things like hydrogen fuel cells for cars, but what about everything else that runs off of fossil fuels?

 

Build a fireplace.

 

hey man, dont worry about heating your home when youre 90, because according to the scientists we are currently suffering from global warming !!!!




BuiltToughF250

 

"hey man, dont worry about heating your home when youre 90, because according to the scientists we are currently suffering from global warming !!!! "

Which means what? You'll be underwater when you are 90 or at least closer to the ocean.


Ray

 

And then we find the next source. The time estimates on the life of an oil field are a little hard to understand and constantly change. They are the estimates of what can be economically be collected at today's prices. As supply goes down and price goes up new fields become economically viable.

The saudis have experienced this first hand. Their mission is to fully control all aspects of oil production from drilling to delivery of finished product. Can you say MONOPOLY? What do you think would happen then? They look down in their hand and see a couple of ***** and they just squeeze for all their worth. Well what they didn't cound on was the fluidity of the price of oil. As they reduce their output the price rises. Then the oil companies in Texas can justify producing from wells they closed because it wasn't profitable to run them. Then the supply goes up and opec is then selling fewer barrels for a lower price instead of fewer barrels for a high price. Opec can't afford to continue holding back so they increase production and the supply goes back up and the price goes down.

So what SHOULD we do with the Alaska oil field. If it's only going to last 20-50 years should we just forget it and leave it up there? Or should we collect it and use it while at the same time developing those other sources you referr to? Those sources will come online as they become economically viable. That's the beauty of capitolism over any form of centralized economic planning (communism?). By everyone seeking out what is best for them as individuals, what is best for the group often happens on its own.

 

>hydrogen fuel cells for cars
This is one of those things that treehuggers love to promote, but personally i would never want to ride in one of these. Why you ask, well remeber in history class learning about the Hindenburg? Does anyone remeber what it was filled with? HYDROGEN GAS Now think what would happen it you got in a wreck and the cell cracked.

Second
A study was done that proved that if you have an electric car and the electrictity used to charge the batteries comes from a coal power plant, you are poluting the enviroment more than if you just drove a car.


About the oil field thing, it will not cause the death of the carabu heards, destroy all the grass in Alaska. It will be the same land before and after the drill. Personally, i think we should drill.

Chris

 

>About the oil field thing, it will not cause the death of
>the carabu heards, destroy all the grass in Alaska. It will
>be the same land before and after the drill. Personally, i
>think we should drill.
>
>Chris


I'm with Chris. It's there for us to use instead of being held for ransom by OPEC. Use it wisely to diminish our dependence on foreign oil. Drill responsibly as has been proven before we are capable of doing. But use what is there. It's also been said that there is a supply underneath the gulf that dwarfs anything OPEC has. As has been pointed out, it's not cost effective to pump. YET. At some point in time OPEC will make it feasible to tap that reserve.

In the meantime, explore the alternatives. (And build that fireplace). LOL

Ron

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-Oct-02 AT 11:20 AM (EST)]It's not cost effective for American companies to pump because they don't have us "over a barrel", so to speak. They will start using our oil when they can realize a tremendous increase in price to line their pockets. If they were actually concerned for the American people about rising oil costs, wouldn't they limit the price to us and just not make as big a killing as usual? Fuel prices go up because John Q. Oilbaron doesn't want to reduce his massive profit margin.
Actually, I wasn't looking for the debate on whether to drill or not either. Eventually, all the oil will be gone, and the natural gas, and the mineable coal, and the trees. Man has a way of using up everything without looking to the future. It's always too little, too late.
I was looking for the horror that overtakes you when you realize we have used up the fossil fuels and have waited too long to develop a replacement. That is just like most people, to wait until something is gone before worrying about the consequences. It may be possible that those scientific minds have something in the works that they won't tell us about. I know they won't do much towards making solar power work well until the power companies find some way of charging us for sunlight. Same thing with wind turbines. They can't charge us for wind, so no rush to invent better technology. Right?

 

There was a good article in Car and Driver a month or so back on Hydrogen fuel celled cars. Nice idea, but where do we get the hydrogen? It's not just floating around somewhere. We have to "make" it by using electricity to break down water or some other source of hydrogen. Electricity comes from hydro dams(bad for environment), Oil(nasty stuff), Natural gas(Bad for enviro), Coal(the tree huggers demon), Nuclear(green peace disaster), Windmills(bird killers). Well heck sounds like these non polluting solutions actually just move it around.

Like always. The fuel of choice will be whatever is most cost effective for us to use. I still hope someday to have cold fusion in a bottle, but for now I guess we use oil, and might transition to hybrids.

Just my opinion,

Jim Henderson

 

>What I want to know is:
>
>THEN WHAT?


Ever heard of alcohol?? Methonol and Ethonol??
How about methane gas?? So it has a lower BTU
output than oil and it's byproducts, you can
can still run a car with it...


Steve & the Rockette
'63 F100
'68 F100
'72 Capri 2L
'73 Capri 2.6L V6
'73 MG B GT 2.6L V6(Ford)
'98 Contour SVT 2.5L V6, That blowed up real good...
'01 ZX2 (No Mods yet)